Indian (1996)

Director: S. Shankar

Story: S. Shankar, Sujatha

Cast: Kamal Hassan, Manisha Koirala, Sukanya

Music: A. R. Rahman

Time: 185 minutes

Bottom-line: Could have been executed so much better

I know I am in the minority here, so I am going to get myself some protection from the curses… I found Indian to be very poorly made. India’s submission the Oscars for Best Foreign Film, and winner of 3 National awards for Best Actor, Visual Effects and Art Direction, Indian was at that time, the highest grossing Tamil film. Starring Kamal Hassan (in a double role) and Manisha Koirala in the lead roles, this is a story of a vigilante who plans to root out corrupt officials in the country.

Chandra Bose aka Chandru (Hassan) is a middle-man working outside the RTO office, by doing under-the-table paperwork for people to get licenses and permits. His love interest is Aishwarya (Koirala), an animal rights activist. She is jealous of Sapna (Urmila Mathondkar) – the daughter of an RTO official to whom Chandru has to suck up to, in order to get a job in the office – who has a crush on Chandru. Meanwhile, Senapathy (Hassan) is a 70-year-old man, who is an expert in an ancient Indian form of martial arts called Varma kalai. As we later get to know, he is an ex-freedom fighter and also Chandru’s father. We see him stab a corrupt government official to death, and the police is hot on his trail. Later, he even broadcasts a live murder on TV. Determined to eradicate the concept of bribery, Senapathy – calling himself “Indian” – has a mission in his hand. How does he go about it?

 

Hassan as Senapathy

One characteristic feature of Shankar’s films is his grandiose; he is like the James Cameron of the Tamil film industry. And that includes the strengths of Cameron, and the stuff I hate. To start with, this has to be the worst Goundamani-Senthil “comedy track” (in quotes) ever. For the amount of screen time given to them, I expected at least some laughs and quotable jokes, but I got none. Next, who let Urmila Mathondkar in? As if one annoying actress in the form of Manisha Koirala wasn’t enough – at least her character was important – Urmila’s acting was equally irritating, and her character could have been done away with. 185 minutes is way too long. If Shankar’s main intention was to get the idea out, he could have made a clean film with less than two hours of screen time.

 

Hassan as Chandru, Urmila as Sapna (centre) and
Koirala as Aishwarya 

The highlight, of course, is Kamal Hassan – winning his second National Award for acting, after Nayakan – or to be precise, the Hassan who plays Senapathy. With stylish moves, cunning ploys and powerful lines, this character is a wake-up call to the Indians. The part of the film that shows his young life in the Indian freedom movement has been captured beautifully on screen – with amazing sets and visuals. Sukanya, who plays his wife, has done well, but I would have preferred another actress playing her older self. While Kamal’s makeup is immaculate, that of Sukanya’s is terrible!

 

Sukanya as Amrita (all the pre-independence scenes
are presented in black-and-white)

(Spoiler) I, for one, find it a hard to believe that a man can be so stringent on rules and honesty when his own daughter is a few minutes away from death. I am not supporting bribery, but it doesn’t seem realistic that the first time Senapathy encounters bribery is when his daughter is dying (how did this guy get his driver's license?!). He could have started his mission after saving her; the corruption wouldn’t have lessened anyway. And if Senapathy is so insistent on doing things lawfully, doesn't he realise killing is also illegal? The ending is also disappointing. After willing to rid the country of corruption, why would Senapathy himself escape to a foreign land?! Where did all the patriotism go? (On a side note, I liked how his escape at the airstrip was similar to the unknown fate of Subhash Chandra Bose in reality).

Overall, Indian was not at all impressive. With excessive screen time, horrible acting by most and a plot that could have been so much better, the 2 stars go entirely to Kamal’s performance and the visuals for the scenes of the independence struggle. That’s all there is.

My Rating: 2/5

A Serious Man (2009)

Director: Joel and Ethan Coen

Story: Joel and Ethan Coen

Cast: Michael Stuhlbarg, Sari Lennick, Fred Melamed

Music: Carter Burwell

Time: 105 minutes

Bottom-line: Darkly funny, superbly acted

One of the most underrated films of 2009, the Coen brothers’ black comedy, A Serious Man, is the tale of a Jewish family that gradually falls apart. The film stars Michael Stuhlbarg, Sari Lennick and Fred Melamed in the lead roles, with Richard Kind, Aaron Wolff and Amy Landecker in the supporting roles. The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture.

 

Stuhlbarg as Larry

The prologue takes place in a village, sometime in the 19^th century, where a man tells his wife that he has invited a friend over for soup. His wife says that the “friend” is a man long dead. She proves her point that it is a ghost by stabbing the guest, but he walks out of their house, bleeding. We then shift to 1967, where Larry Gopnik (Stuhlbarg) is a physics professor in Minnesota. His wife, Judith (Lennick) wants a divorce, to marry a widower, Sy (Melamed). Larry’s son, Danny (Wolff), is a drug addict, his daughter is wasting her life, and his brother, Arthur (Kind) sleeps on the couch, and is working on “the probability map of the universe”. Larry’s student tries to bribe and blackmail him for a higher grade, and he’s warned that he might be fired. Larry also has the pressure of his son’s upcoming Bar Mitzvah. Seeing his wife become attached to Sy, Larry also gets attracted to his voluptuous neighbour (Landecker). It is only a matter of time before the family implodes.

Wolff as Danny

The thing I like most about Coen brothers’ films is the way they involve the cruel twist of fate in their stories. A recurring theme in the film is about uncertainty, that Larry even teaches in his class. The beginning of the film seems to be totally unrelated to the rest of it, but that’s probably just to highlight the Jewish background, and to indicate that the ghost has cursed the family. Every plot twist is satisfying, and the ending is open-ended. Some things are left unsaid, and some people’s fates are left to our interpretation. Some things that Larry does are debatable, but that again, is the interference of fate. To see Larry’s family fall apart is actually melancholic, but the Coens have done so well to instil the dark humour that we chuckle even when we don’t want to.

 

Melamed as Sy, and Lennick as Judith

Michael Stuhlbarg’s acting is the standout performance. Despite all that’s happening around him, it is amazing to see the actor keep a constant expression that mixes every emotion possible – sadness, confusion, desperation, anger and what not. The way his character has been created – to undergo so many shocks and depressions back-to-back, and still survive, is the reason behind the title. All Larry wants to do is to become “a serious man”, but nothing else is going his way. The other notable performance is that of Landecker as the sex-addicted neighbour; it is as though the script was made for the actress. I was surprised to see Simon Helberg play a Jew here as well – he is the actor portraying Howard Wolowitz in The Big Bang Theory.

 

Landecker as the neighbour, and Larry

The cinematography is superbly done, with extensive use of the Dutch angle technique and blurred imagery to highlight the point-of-view of the characters, each one delirious in his own way. A Serious Man is a tad disappointing with the open-ended climax, but the acting, storyline and the visuals are highly commendable.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 90% 

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Director: Joel Coen

Story: Joel and Ethan Coen

Cast: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Julianne Moore

Music: Carter Burwell

Time: 117 minutes

Bottom-line: You’ll be rolling over laughing in no time!

The Coens make their second comedy film following Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski. Starring Jeff Bridges – in one of his most iconic roles – John Goodman, Julianne Moore, Steve Buscemi and David Huddleston, the film is infamous for having no plot at all, but has become a classic in the comedy genre.

 

(From left) Bridges as The Dude, Buscemi as
Donny and Goodman as Walter

1991, LA: Jeff “The Dude” Lebowski (Bridges) is a slacker who regularly hangs out at the bowling alley with his friends, Walter (Goodman) and Donny (Buscemi). Walter is an extremely short-tempered, foul-mouthed Vietnam war veteran, and Donny is timid and shy. The Dude is attacked by two goons at his house, who claim that his wife owes money to a porn magnate; they also urinate on his rug. The Dude finds out that there exists another man with the same name: Jeff “The Big” Lebowski (Huddleston) – a cantankerous millionaire – to whom he goes to get a new rug (and later steals one!). Things get complicated when Lebowski’s wife is kidnapped, and he hires The Dude to deliver the ransom, but Walter decides to dupe Lebowski and the kidnappers and keep the million-dollar ransom. The Dude later meets Lebowski’s daughter, Maude (Moore), who says that the kidnapping is a scheme by Lebowski himself. Whose money has gone where, and who is the target?

Huddleston as "The Big" Lebowski

 From creating a religion called “Dudeism” to having African spider species being named after the characters, to designing meme templates, the film’s cultural impact is huge. Despite mixed reviews initially, the film has then achieved cult status. Jeff Bridges is hilarious in his portrayal of the laziest person on the planet, with his constant drunkenness and carefree attitude. John Goodman’s role is the comic version of Joe Pesci’s Tommy DeVito. Using a cuss word in every sentence, his insanely violent behaviour and anger provide a lot of humour. Of course, Walter’s character is the one responsible for the domino effect of events that happen to The Dude.

 

Moore as Maude

The eclectic soundtrack is another highlight, not something that the Coens employ in their other films. The cinematography by Roger Deakins is also brilliant, particularly the dream sequences with a lot of fantasy imagery and effects. This is the first film to use the point-of-view technique from inside a rolling ball. The last half hour of the movie makes absolutely no sense, or if they do make sense, then the film so far, doesn’t. The cowboy who talks directly to the camera before the closing credits just gives us an idea of the future of the characters, but himself admits that he has lost track of events. The plot twists, however, give us something to look out for, all the way.

 

The meme template inspired by this film

But this is a film to be enjoyed for its idiosyncrasies, its lunatic characters and dialogues. From the character intros, to the comic mix-ups, to the insults, it’s non-stop humour, and there’s no compromise on that. While the cursing might be a little hard on the ears, the hysterical visuals will get you laughing in no time. That’s the only take away from The Big Lebowski.      

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 81%

The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

Director: Joel Coen

Story: Joel and Ethan Coen

Cast: Billy Bob Thornton, Frances McDormand

Music: Carter Burwell

Time: 116 minutes

Bottom-line: Along the lines of a David Lynch film, but well-made

If it had not been for the opening credits, I would have certainly thought that this was a David Lynch film. Starring Billy Bob Thornton and Frances McDormand (yet another collaboration with the Coens) in the lead roles, with James Gandolfini, Jon Polito, Tony Shalhoub and Scarlett Johansson in the supporting cast, the neo-noir is the sad tale of how a chain reaction of blackmail and trickery destroy a man and his wife.

 

McDormand as Doris, and Thornton
as Ed

1949, California: Ed Crane (Thornton) is a low-key barber (and the narrator), who works with his brother, Frank. Ed’s wife, Doris (McDormand) is a bookkeeper with a drinking problem. Ed suspects – and correctly guesses – that Doris is having an affair with her boss, Dave (Gandolfini). One day, a businessman, Tolliver (Polito) meets Ed and proposes a new idea: dry-cleaning. He says he will take care of the entrepreneurship, and will split the profit 50-50 with Ed, if he agrees to be an investor and lend $10000 for the purpose. Intrigued by this, Ed decides to blackmail Dave about the affair, to get the money, and Dave embezzles the money from his store. Dave eventually realises that Ed is behind this, and he confronts Ed, saying he has beat-up Tolliver, who talked. Ed stabs Dave to death, but the blame is put on Doris, who is arrested. Ed and his brother spend a fortune to hire an expensive lawyer, Freddy, (Shalhoub) to defend Doris. Tortured by guilt and financial problems, how long can Ed bear the burden?

 

Gandolfini as Dave

The fact that the firm is in black-and-white makes it all the more noir-ish, to highlight that everyone is a “grey” character. The story shows how everyone who commits a crime will be punished in one way or the other – the unfaithful wife, the cheating businessman, the lying boss, and the blackmailer. Ed’s character often repeats the fact that he is “just” a barber, implying that he is an everyman, a nobody. But again, fate has a cruel way of giving one his own medicine. The film is a long road of gradual and total destruction of two people’s lives. The ending suddenly becomes a bit weird, with a lot of philosophical stuff to ponder over, but this is a “cleaner” climax compared to the other open-ended ones of the Coens’ films.

 

Polito as Tolliver

Billy Bob Thornton has a constant glum expression throughout the film, but I guess that’s how his character is designed (as I said, Ed’s character is “just” a barber; he admits that he rarely talks, while his brother is the opposite). Constantly in doubt between right and wrong, troubled by guilt and slowly running out of options, seeing the fate of his character is quite depressing. Frances McDormand and Gandolfini’s roles are also good. I found the scenes where Ed, Doris and Freddy plan out their case some of the best parts of the film – husband and wife not willing to admit their crimes, and Freddy desperate to save his reputation by finding out loopholes in the case that can get Doris out. There is one part where Ed even admits that he committed the crime, but Freddie thinks it’s his idea to get himself arrested instead of Doris, and rejects it! The tension in the atmosphere is extreme, and the brilliant cinematography - with that eerie visual of sunlight entering through the grilled window - highlights it!

Shalhoub as Freddie

The plot twists, the interplay of fate in the tales of the characters, the acting and the cinematography are the highlights of The Man Who Wasn’t There. It might not be a satisfying climax – given the depressing tone of the entire film – and it is a disturbing watch, but it is worth it.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 81% 

Kalaignan (1993)

English translation: Artist

Director: G. B. Vijay

Story: G. B. Vijay

Cast: Kamal Hassan, Bindhya

Music: Ilayaraaja

Time: 143 minutes

Bottom-line: Unfurls at break-neck pace; a tense murder-mystery

One of Kamal Hassan’s most underrated films (I can’t imagine why!), this 1993 thriller stars Kamal and Bindhya in the lead roles, with Sivaranjani and Nassar in the supporting roles. A film more violent than its contemporaries, I still consider it to be one of the best mystery films in Tamil cinema history, and of course, it features one of my most favourite songs from Indian cinema: Enthan Nenjil Neengaatha.

A Tamil pop singer based in Bangalore, Inderjeet (Hassan), has a large following among his female fans. The film opens with one dancer in his troop, Sandhya (Sivaranjani), having her throat slit and being thrown off a building to her death. Sandhya’s sister, Divya (Bindhya) comes to Bangalore to find out the killer. She runs into Inderjeet by mistake, but is angered at his haughtiness and short-temper. After he saves her from a bunch of thugs, she starts to become closer to him. The police detective (Nassar) warns her that the chief suspect in the murder is Inderjeet himself, and sure enough, as Bindhya enquires about him, she finds more incriminating evidence. With another fan of Inderjeet being murdered in the same way, the police and Divya confront Inderjeet, and he comes clean with his version of the truth. Is he really the murderer? Or is someone framing him?

 

Hassan as Inderjeet

Kalaignan brilliantly blends violence, drama, mystery and revenge in one neat package. Through clever camerawork, the audience is lured into believing that Inderjeet is the murderer. The different stories told by a cab driver and visual image of Inderjeet’s pair of gloves emphasise his guilt all the more. Inderjeet’s version of the truth brings in a lot of further twists. There is always a constant dilemma over which character is good and who is not. The only thing that plays spoilsport in the tense suspense is the car chase in the climax.

 

Bindhya as Divya

The murder scenes are a bit grotesque to watch, but the camerawork throughout the film is masterfully done. The music is not that great except for the one aforementioned song. Kamal Hassan – as always – has given an impressive performance. Seeing him “appear” in a villainous role was again, exciting to watch (after his role in Sigappu Rojakkal). Bindhya’s performance was also good.  

With highly satisfying plot twists (and ending), terrific pace of storytelling and good acting, Kalaignan may not be Kamal’s best movie, but is definitely worth a watch for all those wanting a good thriller.

My Rating: 3.5/5

O Kadhal Kanmani (2015)

English translation: Oh, my Love!

Director: Mani Ratnam

Story: Mani Ratnam

Cast: Dulquer Salmaan, Nithya Menen

Music: A. R. Rahman

Time: 138 minutes

Bottom-line: Interesting concept to explore, but doesn’t quite have an impact on the viewer

Mani Ratnam’s drama, O Kadhal Kanmani (popularly known as OK Kanmani), explores a taboo topic in India: a live-in relationship. The film was supposed to be – and I quote – “a reflection of the modern mindset of urban India”, but while it certainly starts out that way, eventually it becomes like any other romance film. The film stars Dulquer Salmaan and Nithya Menen in the lead roles, with Prakash Raj and Leela Samson in the supporting roles.

Mumbai: Aditya Varadarajan (Salmaan) is a video game developer, working on a game Mumbai 2.0. The film starts with him saving a girl, Tara (Menen), from jumping on the railway tracks in front of a train, and he later meets the same girl at a friend’s wedding. They soon start to call and meet each other frequently and fall in love. Both of them agree that marriage will not work out, and decide to have a live-in relationship at Aditya’s place, which he has rented from Ganapathy (Raj) and his wife, Bhavani (Samson). Though reluctant at first, Ganapathy agrees to let her stay. A day comes when Aditya is called to the US to develop his game further; at the same time, Tara’s application for studying in Paris has been approved, but neither of them tells the other. Knowing that they have to part ways in a few days, what do they do?

 

Salmaan as Aditya and Menen
as Tara

The first twenty minutes or so are pure fun; the way Ratnam shows the bonding between Aditya and Tara is so natural and so relatable. Nothing fancy, just two adults chatting, going out and eventually falling in love. The part where he introduces the live-in relationship is where things get interesting, and make you keen to find out how things go. The story then explores this new type of relationship, and simultaneously also focuses on that between Ganapathy and his wife, an Alzheimer’s patient. Now the story gets complex and messy with more characters being introduced (Aditya’s and Tara’s families), and both lovers being confused about their future. Both of them are inspired by the love Ganapathy has for his wife, even though at times she forgets who he is! The ending tries to focus on too many things – petty fights between Tara and Aditya, Bhavani’s Alzheimer’s etc. and seems abrupt.

(Spoiler) The ending is what most audiences would want, but I felt differently. Seeing the older couple supporting each other against all odds, Aditya and Tara decide to get married and then pursue their lives in separate countries. This, to me, sort of moves away from what I thought was the main idea of the story. Had the two of them decided to just remember the memories and live separately – like say, Roman Holiday ­– that would have a tragic, but different, climax, instead of the general “happily ever after” one – the lead characters marrying each other. This is most other films do anyway – boy and girl constantly try to be with each other all throughout the movie, and in the end, everything works out. The whole “effect” of how a live-in relationship affects love, seems to dissolve in the happy ending.

Salmaan and Menen have given good (nothing "extraordinary", as other reviews say) performances, particularly in the first hour or so, when all their emotions flow naturally. There’s not much humour – although a lot of attempts at it – but I guess that’s how it is supposed to be; the scenes could have well been unscripted. I didn’t like Rahman’s score and songs that much either; he has done a far better job in other Mani Ratnam films.

So, the main reason I ended up being disappointed with the film is that when I knew that a new theme was being explored, I hoped for a different finale. Still, the film is fun and interesting to watch most of the way, and the acting is pretty good.

My Rating: 2.5/5

Guru (2007)

Director: Mani Ratnam

Story: Mani Ratnam

Cast: Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, R. Madhavan

Music: A. R. Rahman

Time: 162 minutes

Bottom-line: A major success, with some minor flaws

Mani Ratnam’s drama, loosely based on the life of Dhirubai Ambani – a business tycoon and the founder of Reliance industries – Guru stars Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai in the lead roles, with R. Madhavan, Vidya Balan and Mithun Chakraborty in the supporting roles. A major critical and commercial success, the film is known for its direction and musical score.

1951, Gujarat: A young boy, Gurukant “Guru” Desai dreams of making it big in future. Despite his father’s discouragement, he does not give up. An adult Guru (Bachchan) goes to Turkey to enter the spice trade, but soon comes back to India with the idea of starting his own business. He marries Sujatha (Rai) because of the dowry she brings him. Along with her brother, Sujatha and Guru go to Bombay to start a market in polyester, and Guru establishes his own film, “Shakti Corporation”. As Guru’s business expands, Manik Dasgupta (Chakraborty) – publisher of a newspaper, and a well-wisher of Guru – calls reporter Shyam Saxena (Madhavan) to investigate Guru’s business. Shyam quickly finds out that Guru has been smuggling machines and manipulates stocks in the relentless pursuit of profit. Shyam and Dasgupta plan to expose Guru, who, by this time, is also a family man. How Guru’s life goes on is what the film is about.

 

Bachchan as Guru, and Rai as Sujatha

Guru seems to be one of Ratnam’s grander films, with a lot of detail given to the sets and costumes. From period settings to song sequences, the visual appearance is wonderful. The film also finds A. R. Rahman in full form, giving us beautiful songs like Tere Bina and Aye Hairathe. The camerawork is also another highlight, especially the technique of shooting continuously in 360 degrees – also used a lot in Iruvar. Guru’s speech towards the end, as well as several other lines in the film, are superbly scripted.

Madhavan as Shyam

Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai have both acted really well, the former also surprising me a little. From the energetic, determined lad to the successful family man to the paralysed “criminal” on the verge of losing everything, Abhishek Bachchan rises to the occasion and delivers every time. Of course, the only flaw is that he should improve on his dance steps a little! Rai plays the quiet, loyal wife, taking her husband’s side come hell or high water, and what a performance it is! Madhavan and Chakraborty have also done well. Vidya Balan plays a small role as Dasgupta’s granddaughter and later, Shyam’s wife – Meenu. I still don’t understand the significance of her role, apart from being responsible for a lot of sentimental moments which we could do well without.

The structure of the story is quite solid: starting from Guru’s childhood, his small progresses, the setting up of his empire, then a slow degradation with the entry of Dasgupta and Shyam, and finally, the conclusion. Interspersed with this main track is the bonding and loyalty between Guru and Sujatha, and also between Shyam and Meenu. While the story drags around 20 minutes more than needed, the remainder of the film is brilliantly made: engaging, dramatic and inspirational.

My Rating: 3.5/5    

Frenzy (1972)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Screenplay: Anthony Shaffer (based on the book by Arthur la Bern)

Cast: Jon Finch, Barry Foster, Alec McCowen

Music: Ron Goodwin

Time: 116 minutes

Bottom-line: Grizzly and violent; far from the trademark Hitchcock

Hitchcock’s penultimate film, Frenzy, is the story of a serial killer/rapist wandering in the streets of London. Known for its infamous strangulation scene, analogous to the shower scene of Psycho, the film stars Jon Finch and Barry Foster in the lead roles, with Alec McCowen, Anna Massey and Barbara Leigh-Hunt in the supporting roles.

Covent Garden, London: The film starts with the corpse of a naked woman being washed up near the Thames; she is found strangled with a neck-tie, which is yet another death in a series of murders, where women are raped and strangled with neckties. Richard Blaney (Finch) is a man who has just lost his job at a local bar. His divorced wife, Brenda (Hunt), runs a matchmaking service. Blaney’s friend is a fruit merchant, Rusk (Foster), who used the matchmaking service, but was later blacklisted for beating up his dates. When Rusk meets Brenda, he rapes her while she prays, and strangles her to death. Suspicion falls on Richard, who is seen outside the building by Brenda’s secretary. It’s not long before Richard’s girlfriend, Barbara (Massey) is also strangled to death. How does Richard prove himself innocent?

 

Massey as Barbara and Finch as Blaney

Frenzy is by far Hitchcock’s most freakishly violent film; even the shower scene of Psycho and the bird attack scene in The Birds take the back seat to the scene here when Rusk rapes and strangles Brenda to death. The close-ups of their faces, the tie, the neck… it’s a painful half a minute to watch, and equally grizzly are the images of the other corpses shown. Hitchcock also reaches a new level of dark humour in the scene where Rusk hides in a delivery truck and digs out a corpse from a potato sack to retrieve his pin, to safeguard his identity. The ending, on the other hand, is tame; it is logical, but given the excitement of the film, I expected something more dramatic.

 

Foster as Rusk

Another thing I hated about the film is the “comic relief” track involving the inspector’s wife, as he discusses the case with her. Her character and the scenes were redundant. The film seems to have a more “colourful” appearance than other Hitchcock films. The cinematography is brilliant, and one notable scene is when the camera pans out of Rusk’s house, down the stairs and on to the street in one long take, which is an indirect morbid indication that he is going to strangle yet another victim. Goodwin’s score is skilfully composed.

 

Hunt as Brenda

Rusk is one of the most sadistic villains that I have seen; I am surprised he hasn’t made it into any of the “top villains” list. Barry Foster had to read about a real-life serial killer to get into character, and what a fine job he has done! Jon Finch’s acting was also pretty good. I liked his character’s entry, where first the corpse of a woman is shown with a tie around her neck, and in the very next scene, we see Blaney putting on a tie of his own!

So, while Frenzy is nothing like the classic Hitchcock of the 50s and early 60s, the film still delivers satisfying chills and thrills. Very offbeat and unconventional, but it’s worth a watch!

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 87% 

Rebecca (1940)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Screenplay: Robert Sherwood, Joan Harrison (based on the novel by Daphne du Maurier)

Cast: Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine

Music: Franz Waxman

Time: 130 minutes

Bottom-line: Not as thrilling as expected, but a beautiful and faithful adaptation of the book

Hitchcock’s first American film – and his only film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture – Rebecca is based on Daphne du Maurier’s classic novel of the same name. Starring Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine in the lead roles, with Judith Anderson and George Sanders in the supporting roles, the film is one of Hitchcock’s most acclaimed films, also being nominated for 11 Oscars (winning two).

Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderley again.

Monte Carlo: An unnamed, simplistic, naïve woman (Fontaine) is charmed by the wealthy aristocratic widower, Maximillian “Maxim” de Winter (Olivier). As they spend time together, he proposes to her, and soon they are married. The woman – henceforth referred to only as “the second Mrs. de Winter” – moves in along with Maxim to his enormous country mansion, “Manderley”. While Mrs. de Winter is awed by the opulent lifestyle, she is also unnerved by the spooky atmosphere in the house: everything around her seems to indirectly or directly point to Maxim’s dead wife: Rebecca. The housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Anderson) also constantly talks about Rebecca’s beauty, intelligence and even preserves her room as a shrine. As events progress, Maxim’s new wife becomes more and more intimidated by Rebecca’s “presence”, and one day, she discovers a shocking truth about the past, that changes everything.

 

Olivier as Maxim, and Fontaine as the
second Mrs. de Winter

The film is a faithful adaptation of the novel that came in 1938: everything from the famous opening line to the burning mansion in the climax. Like most of Hitchcock’s early films, it takes a while for us to get to the crux of the plot. A lot of time is given to developing the characters, and emphasising the romance between Maxim and his new wife. The main feature of the film is the atmosphere in and around Manderley: the mind-boggling expanse of the mansion, the people in it, the sinister-looking hut by the shore, and of course, the way in which Rebecca is “represented” through anything and everything in the house.

Mrs. Danvers is considered the antagonist of the story. From the start, her tacit hatred towards Maxim’s new wife is imminent, bit by bit strengthening the presence of Rebecca in the mansion, and it all comes out when she diabolically convinces Mrs. de Winter to commit suicide. Judith Anderson in this role is brilliant. Joan Fontaine’s performance is highly commendable, especially the way her character is first subdued and cowed by the exorbitance and influence of de Winter and Rebecca, and later when she asserts her power.

 

Fontaine as Maxim's wife, and Anderson as
Mrs. Danvers (one of the most famous
scenes in the film)

The sets and costumes are not usually a noticeable feature in Hitchcock films, but in Rebecca, they are certainly prominent. The plot twists appear at the right moments, but I wasn’t completely satisfied when the true plan of Rebecca is revealed. The last scene (not present in the original story) that shows the embroidered “R” being burnt to flames – as a symbol that the influence of Rebecca will no longer trouble the married couple – was a nice touch. So, while Rebecca isn’t exactly a thriller, as expected from Hitchcock, the film is certainly worth watching for any Hitchcock fan and an admirer of the novel.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 100%

Mudhalvan (1999)

English translation: The Chief Minister

Director: S. Shankar

Story: S. Shankar, Sujatha

Cast: Arjun Sarja, Manisha Koirala, Manivannan, Raghuvaran

Music: A.R. Rahman

Time: 171 minutes

Bottom-line: A highly inspirational political drama

One of Shankar’s most influential films, and my second favourite (after Anniyan), Mudhalvan shows us a glimpse of a leader we all need. Starring Arjun Sarja, Manisha Koirala and Raghuvaran in the lead roles, with Manivannan, Cochin Haneefa and Vadivel in the supporting cast, the film is one of the best political dramas that the Tamil film industry has produced.

Pugazhendi aka Pugazh (Arjun) is a cameraman working for QTV. One day, violence and riots erupt all over the city following a communal clash. As Pugazh captures these events on camera, he also hears the Chief Minister’s message to the police asking them not to involve in controlling the public or he would lose his supporters. Impressed by Pugazh’s heroics of carrying a dying man to the hospital, he is promoted to the on-air talent. His first task in his new position is to interview the CM himself: Aranganathan (Raghuvaran). In an unexpected turn of events, the interview exposes the corruption of the CM, and in his anger, he challenges Pugazh to take up the post of the CM for one day, just to know how difficult it is. Pugazh accepts, and much to Aranganathan’s woes, wins the admiration of the entire state in his one-day duty. Following this, the public wants Pugazh to contest in the next election formally. How Aranganathan and other corrupt parties obstruct his path, and whether or not Pugazh succeeds is what the film is about.

 

Raghuvaran as Aranganathan (left) and
Arjun as Pugazh (the interview) 

The best part of the film is the fact that the deviations from the main plot are kept to a minimum. The comedy track blends in perfectly, and only the romance part deviates the main track, but only to a minimum extent. To get a feel for the film, watch only the interview between Pugazh and the CM – that’s enough motivation to watch the rest of the movie. I can watch the interview followed by Pugazh’s one-day rule n number of times on a loop (except that one nonsensical fistfight). The climax is also smartly written, and is totally unexpected.

Of course, while the “one-day CM” is not a scenario that is likely to take place with the current state of politics in Tamil Nadu, watching the film does inspire you to “be the change you want to see”. It shows how it is very much possible to clean the cesspit that is politics, but we just don’t want to, because invariably, somewhere down the path of becoming a leader, we become corrupt. As Pugazh says, “In one day, I didn’t pull off anything extraordinary; I only did the duties of a CM, which if the CM had done right in the first place, the state would have been so much better off”.

 

Koirala as Thenmozhi

This is also probably Arjun’s best film; from being the cheeky reporter, to a romantic, to a CM, he executes his role to perfection. Manivannan and Raghuvaran have pulled off brilliant performances, the former being Pugazh’s right-hand man, and turning out to be the inspiration for Pugazh (and the viewers) to enter politics, and the latter playing the main antagonist. Manivannan, Haneefa and Vadivel also chip in with comic relief now and then. I blame Mani Ratnam for being responsible for making Koirala enter the film industry. Her performances in Indian and now Mudhalvan, where she plays a village girl and Pugazh’s love interest, are both horrible (What’s with giving the actress a name, Thenmozhi, which even she can’t pronounce!).  

Mudhalvan, barring the few needless fistfights and a bad lead actress, is one hell of a ride – entertaining and influential at the same time. A must-watch!

My Rating: 3.5/5